Welcome to the show -- Colin, if a kid misses 2 questions out of 15 and we make them redo all 15, [skeptical] I need us to say this plainly: that is not rigor. That is paperwork with a moral costume on. [deadpan] Yes -- we've confused "more pages" with "more learning," which is a very schoolish mistake. And the 2-out-of-15 bit matters. If they've already demonstrated 13 items, asking for those same 13 again is not assessment. It's repetition. Exactly. And this is the move Maika Yeigh and Howard Yank wrote about in Edutopia on March 25, 2026: the targeted retake. Not "take the whole thing again, good luck." Just retake the part that shows the actual gap. Let me read the line because it's crisp: [matter-of-fact] "It is far more effective for the teacher and student to pinpoint specific gaps and limit the retake to those areas." The key phrase there is "specific gaps." Not general redemption. Not point recovery. Specific gaps. And that's the tension, right? Because a lot of retake talk in schools gets weirdly tangled up with grading mercy, or inflation, or "are we being soft?" But if the point is LEARNING, then the question is not "how many points can you win back." The question is "what do you know now that you did not know on Tuesday?" Which is where Dylan Wiliam comes in. His whole point, over and over, is that feedback only matters if it changes what the learner does next. If the next step is just "sit the same kind of full test again," then often the student is spending most of that time re-proving material they already understood. That's not very efficient feedback. It's rather like making someone re-take the driving test because they missed one parallel park. [chuckles] [laughs] And honestly, in school, kids can smell that. They know when we're helping them fix a problem and when we're just making them suffer in an educational font. I had a student last year say, "So I have to redo the whole thing even though I only messed up the claim?" And I remember thinking... yeah, when you say it out loud, that sounds ridiculous. The "claim" bit is useful, actually. Because if the missed learning is one subskill -- thesis statement, stoichiometry conversion, comma splice, whatever it is -- then the retake should isolate that subskill. Otherwise you're muddying the evidence. If they improve on the second attempt, what improved? Their understanding of the gap, or just their stamina for taking tests? Wait -- "muddying the evidence" is the phrase. Because a full retake can hide the thing we're trying to see. A kid might still be weak on the one standard they missed, but do fine overall because they were already strong on everything else. Right. And here's the part teachers will remember on a Sunday afternoon: targeted retakes reduce grading load. If you only need to rescore the items tied to missed learning, you're not regrading 15 items, you're regrading 2 or 3. That's the difference between a policy that sounds noble in a staff meeting and one that doesn't eat your weekend. [warmly] Say that louder for the people with the canvas tabs open. Because that's the surprise in the Edutopia piece for me -- this isn't just better for kids, it's more sustainable for adults. A retake policy dies the minute it becomes a Saturday-night stack of resentment. And I do think we should be careful here. A targeted retake isn't "anything goes." The student still has to address the missed learning. The rigor lives in the precision. Can you now do the thing you could not do before? That's stricter, in a way, than letting broad averages blur everything. Yes! [responds quickly] Precision is a better word than softness or hardness. If the original miss was 2 items, then the retake should be aimed at those 2 items like a flashlight, not a floodlight. So, practically -- tomorrow morning, not in some imaginary perfect school -- I'd make it a four-step routine. First, circle the missed items on the quiz. Physically mark them. Second, spend about two minutes with the student naming the gap. Not "study harder," but "you missed stoichiometry conversions" or "your thesis is a topic, not a claim." That "two minutes" matters. Because if you tell a seventh grader, "Go review and come back," you will get vibes. You will not get learning. But if I sit next to them and say, [questioning tone] "Okay, this one you got -- citation is solid. This one you missed -- your thesis statement isn't arguable yet," now we're talking about a specific fix. Third step: co-write a 15-minute prep plan. Tiny, doable, almost annoyingly concrete. "Review two models, revise one thesis, explain why one weak thesis is weak." That's preparation with boundaries. And fourth, give a three-question mini-retake tied only to those skills, ideally during warm-up the next day. I love the warm-up part because it keeps the whole thing normal-sized. In 3rd period ELA, if a student misses the thesis-statement item but nails citation, they get three questions on thesis statements ONLY. Maybe identify the strongest thesis, revise a weak one, write one for a prompt. Not a full rewrite of the essay. Not a punishment disguised as a retake. The "three questions" is elegant because it's enough to show change without becoming another event. And your thesis-versus-citation example is exactly how this should work: preserve the evidence already earned. If citation was secure on the first attempt, don't pretend it has suddenly become uncertain. [chuckles] Right, I'm not gonna act like citation forgot itself overnight. And kids notice that fairness. They really do. When I say, "You're only redoing thesis work because that's the gap," they sit up differently. It feels less like court sentencing and more like coaching. Let me do the chemistry version, because this gets very obvious there. If a student misses stoichiometry conversions but gets balancing equations right, the retake should be three stoichiometry problems with new numbers or slightly different contexts. Not a brand-new full unit test with balancing, particle diagrams, molar mass, the whole lot. New numbers, same underlying conversion skill. "New numbers, same skill" -- that's the part some teachers worry about, I think. They hear targeted retake and imagine just handing back the same problem with the answers practically glowing through the page. [calm] Yes, but that's a design issue, not a flaw in the model. The evidence should be fresh. Same standard, different prompt. If the original stoichiometry item used grams to moles, the retake can still test that conversion with different quantities. You're checking transfer within the skill, not memory of the exact item. And now the extremely 2026 part: you do not have to write all this from scratch at 10:47 p.m. Paste the missed items into ChatGPT, Claude, or MagicSchool and ask for a three-question targeted retake plus a two-sentence study plan the student can finish in 15 minutes before the retake. The "15 minutes" constraint is clever because it forces the tool -- and you -- to keep the prep proportionate. Not a giant packet. Not "relearn Chapter 6." A brief plan tied to one gap. "Watch for conversion factors; solve two worked examples; explain your setup in one sentence." Done. I was gonna say this is where my marketing alarm goes off, but honestly, if AI saves me from building three custom thesis questions after dinner, I will take the help. The teacher still has to check that the questions actually match the missed skill. But as a first draft? That's real time back. And that's the final test of whether this policy is worth doing. Not whether it sounds humane on paper. Whether, tomorrow, a student fixes the actual gap. If they missed thesis statements, does the retake show stronger thesis statements? If they missed stoichiometry conversions, can they now do the conversions? [reflective] Try it tomorrow. Circle the missed items, name the gap, make the 15-minute plan, give the three-question mini-retake. Then ask yourself one brutally simple question: did this student learn the thing they missed -- or did I just make them take the same test twice? [softly] If it's the second one, that's not rigor. That's admin by photocopier. [laughs] And on that deeply glamorous note -- see you next time.
Audio Coursesby Jellypod